Human Rights Committee

Seventy-first Session

1909^th Meeting (PM)

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE COMMEMORATES TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF ENTRY

INTO FORCE OF COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

The Human Rights Committee met this afternoon to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the entry-into-force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In his opening Statement, Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati of India, Committee Chairman, said the Human Rights Committee had come of age and had firmly established its credibility.  Given the increase in incidents of human rights violations in today’s world, Secretary-General Kofi Annan had called for a decade dedicated to preventing human rights abuses and violations, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, had thrown down the challenge of moving from rhetoric to action in the human rights struggle.  The Human Rights Committee stood ready to take on the challenges, he said. 

Markus Schmidt, Secretary of the Committee, addressed the Committee on behalf of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson.  He said individuals, governments and non-governmental organizations had been impressed with the Committee’s strong record of performance, responsible monitoring, continued standard-setting and concrete application of norms to real people.

Also during the commemoration, Committee members Louis Henkin of the United States, Christine Chanet of France, Martin Scheinin of Finland and Christina Medina Quiroga of Chile made statements.  The impact of the work of the Committee, the Covenant and its Protocol, as well as the Committee’s relationship with non-governmental organizations were addressed during their statements.  Following those statements, a general discussion by Committee members was held.

Andreas Mavromatis and Fausto Pocar, former Committee Chairmen, addressed the Committee.  Representatives of Amnesty International and Equality Now also spoke, as did a former prisoner from Trinidad and Tobago.

The Committee will meet again Tuesday, 27 March, at 10 a.m. to continue its consideration of the initial report of Uzbekistan on its compliance with the Covenant.

Background

The Human Rights Committee met this afternoon to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  That Covenant and its corresponding Optional Protocol were adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 1966 and opened for signature.  They came into force on 23 March 1976.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights begins by stating that all peoples have the right to self-determination.  It recognizes that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.  It prohibits torture, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment, and the arbitrary deprivation of life.  Anyone arrested is to be informed of the reason for the arrest, and anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge is to be brought promptly before a judge or other legally authorized person. 

The Covenant also provides, among other things, for freedom of movement and places limitations upon the expulsion of aliens lawfully present in the territory of a State party.  In addition, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression are recognized by the Covenant, which also prohibits any propaganda for war or any advocacy of national, racial and religious hatred. 

One hundred and forty seven States have ratified or acceded to the Covenant.

Statements

MARKUS SCHMIDT, Secretary of the Committee, speaking on behalf of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, said 25 years of commitment and action under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was reason to celebrate.  The Human Rights Committee had made a significant difference to individuals in all regions of the world and would continue to do so.  There were today 148 States parties to the Covenant.  The United Nations remained committed to achieving universal ratification of that most important treaty.

Reading Ms. Robinson’s statement, he said individuals, governments and NGOs had been impressed with the Committee’s strong record of performance, responsible monitoring, continued standard-setting and concrete application of norms to real people, to visible victims.  It had had successes in persuading States parties to bring their laws and practices into conformity with the Covenant, in granting moral vindication to victims, in obtaining stays of execution, commutation of sentences, new trials, compensation and other remedies.

The Office of the High Commissioner remained committed to assist the Committee in making follow-up procedures more effective and in helping States parties to draft and adopt enabling legislation so that Committee recommendations might more easily be implemented.  Unlike in the regional human rights protection systems, there had been no inter-State mediation, which was possible under article 41 of the Covenant.  That procedure held much promise and could be utilized to expedite friendly settlements.

The High Commissioner urged States parties to the Covenant to take their responsibilities under the Covenant very seriously and to consider themselves collectively responsible for the implementation of the Covenant in all States parties.  She wished the Committee continued success.

A message from the High Commissioner reads as follows:

“Twenty-five years ago the two Covenants that codified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into legally binding treaties entered into force: the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on 3 January 1976 and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 23 March 1976.  We celebrate the many successes achieved by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and by the Human Rights Committee, and renew our commitment to continued monitoring and follow-up, to enhanced technical assistance and advisory services in order to strengthen national human rights institutions and make the rights enshrined in the Covenants a reality for all humanity.  I take this opportunity to recall the Millennium Assembly and to urge all States that have not yet become parties to the Covenants to respond positively to the Secretary-General’s appeal for universal ratification.  I also urge all States parties to the Covenants to take their treaty responsibilities very seriously and to consider themselves collectively responsible for the implementation of the Covenants in all States parties.”

PRAFULLACHANDRA NATWARLAL BHAGWATI of India, Committee Chairman, said that on the Covenant’s twenty-fifth anniversary, there was much room for satisfaction but no room for complacency.  The Human Rights Committee had come of age and had firmly established its credibility.  It had addressed its three main functions with increasing competence.  Monitoring State party compliance with the Covenant was one of the functions.  That included holding meetings with non-governmental organizations, in addition to reviewing the reports of State parties and holding dialogues with them. 

The two other functions of the Committee were scrutinizing complaints submitted to the Committee under the Covenant’s Optional Protocol and developing general comments on the Covenant, he said.  It had thus far issued 28 general comments.

The Covenant was slowly but surely gaining universal ratification, he said.  The Committee had developed good working relationships with the other bodies of the United Nations human rights system and other relevant agencies; nevertheless, there was room for improvement.  The success of the Committee had resulted in a greater use of its complaints mechanism.  However, while backlogs had become inevitable, they should never become acceptable.  Non-governmental organizations had a crucial role to play in, among other things, publicizing the results of the Committee’s deliberations and in functioning as watchdogs of the Covenant’s implementation.

There was an increase in incidents of human rights violations in today’s world, he said.  The Secretary-General had called for a decade dedicated to preventing human rights abuses and violations.  The High Commissioner for Human Rights had thrown down the challenge of moving from rhetoric to action in the human rights struggle.  The Human Rights Committee stood ready to take on the challenges.  To do so, it needed full and unreserved commitment and support from the international community.

ANDREAS MAVROMATTIS, former Chairman of the Committee, said of all the mechanisms that strove for the implementation of Human Rights, the Committee was an extremely important body that set the pace for other organs.  As such it imposed on the members special obligations to live up to the expectations of the international community.

The Committee started in the second half of the 1970s, at a time when détente was in eclipse and the cold war was again setting in.  As a result, human rights were abused for political gain, and there were great difficulties at the time.  The first Committee went beyond those difficulties and managed to establish the Committee’s prestige in the international arena.

Recalling the first days of the Committee, he said non-governmental organization reports on countries could not even be mentioned.  However, elected officers of the Committee developed good work relations and managed to create a good name for the Committee.  After considerable behind-the-scene “coffees”, it had been decided that all efforts should be exhausted before allowing an issue to come to a vote.  That practice had led the Committee through difficult times.  A vote had not been taken during the first 20 years except in respect to communications.

He recalled that States parties initially had been afraid of questions asked by the Committee concerning their reports and “feared it like the Inquisition”.  The report and the questions were meant, however, as a dialogue.  Another task was dealing with the communications, and he said the Committee had managed to save the lives of a number of people.

He had the feeling that the Committee’s work had led to the eventual abolition of socialist regimes.  Assessing the Committee’s work, he said that, despite difficulties, and because of the right approach, the future augured extremely well.  The Committee had serious responsibilities and he expected the Committee would continue to live up to them.  It was the guiding force for other human rights committees, he said.  

FAUSTO POCAR, former Committee Chairman, spoke on the Committee’s contribution to international law.  He said the Committee played an extremely important role and its achievements had been and were prodigious.  The Covenant had an important impact on various branches of law -- municipal and international.  Its application had an impact on international human rights law and on other branches as well.

He stressed the Committee’s contribution to the area of humanitarian law.  The Committee had come to the conclusion, for instance, that the notion of torture did not necessarily require the presence of a State official to fall under the protection of the Covenant.  The International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia had recently come to a similar conclusion, he noted.  Both international criminal Tribunals had made use of the Committee’s views to stress that any violation of human rights required an appropriate remedy.  Reference to the Covenant was becoming quite common. 

The contribution of the Committee had been very important in the area of the law of treaties, he said.  In that regard, he noted the importance of the Committee’s contribution to the issue of reservations to treaties.  The Committee’s position and views adopted on State succession with regard to treaties was another important aspect of the Committee’s contribution to the law of treaties.  Rights protected under former States were enjoyed by the citizens of States which had been created following their breakup.  He cited the States which had succeeded to the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union as examples.  Treaty interpretation was another key area of the Committee’s contribution. 

It was important not just to consider the final views of the Committee, such as general comments and comments on reports, he stressed.  Individual positions on issues were also essential.

Taking up relations between the Committee and States parties, LOUIS HENKIN (United States) said the Covenant and the Committee had been modest and cautious creations by hesitant States parties.  The Covenant was to be essentially self-enforcing and internationally monitored by a monitoring body, the Committee.

The Committee was hedged by limitations.  It was not a court, only a committee; it did not enter judgement, but expressed views.  Some States parties had been less than scrupulous about their reporting requirements and some States had been less than attentive to the Committee’s comments, he said.  He reiterated that States parties’ obligation to report was an inter-State legal obligation like other inter-State obligations.

It seemed not inappropriate to address States parties in the spirit of cooperation, as the Committee was elected by the States parties.  Parties, however, did not seem to recognize their responsibilities to help the Committee to work effectively.  He reiterated that States parties had the responsibility to ensure respect for human rights by other States parties.

Regarding article 41 of the Covenant, he said a significant number of States had expressed a willingness to submit their claims to the Committee, but none had done so.  A State that did not report violated a serious international obligation towards other States parties, he said.

CHRISTINE CHANET of France, Committee member, addressed the work of the Committee.  She said it was necessary to consider that certain States did not respect their obligations regarding reports.  The Committee could not exceed its means.  Formal consideration of reports often kept the exercise from being efficient, as there was a great deal of repetition.

Many States were now ratifying all the United Nations instruments and could not provide reports under each treaty, she said.  To simplify matters, the Committee had decided to amend the reporting procedure.  The Committee should think about the conditions under which reports of States in emergency situations were reviewed, so that the Committee was not always lagging behind.

The relationship of the Committee with non-governmental organizations -– which was fundamental -- must also be reconsidered, she said.  She suggested holding a meeting with non-governmental organizations with interpretation present to facilitate the proceedings.  As to the Committee’s general comments, she said there had been a notable progression.  They had become less formal and more elaborate. 

She then noted an initiative that had been undertaken with regard to commemorating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Committee next year.  Work on that issue should be continued. 

The CHAIRMAN said he appreciated Ms. Chanet’s suggestions with regard to working with non-governmental organizations.  He said the Committee should take up and decide this session on the issue of creating a human rights publication of its own.

MARTIN SCHEININ (Finland) addressed the impact of the Optional Protocol procedure, which allowed for individual complaints.  He said that although one could assume that the countries least likely to violate the Covenant had joined the Optional Protocol, cases had been brought against all 12 original countries that had ratified it.  Much had been achieved in the 25 years.  The Protocol had proven to be a universal procedure, bringing together experts from different parts of the world trying to reach consensus on the most controversial issues.  Many of the cases had had far-reaching ramifications.

There had been more than 950 cases under the Optional procedure, and 354 had led to final views of the Committee, an impressive number, he said.  There were now 98 States parties to the Optional Protocol.  However, there were 30 States parties against which no single complaint had been brought, which showed the population was not always aware of the possibility to bring cases.

He drew parallels with the European Convention on Human Rights and said it had taken at least 25 years before that Convention had made a breakthrough in domestic courts, made possible by the development of the case law of the European court itself.  That model created an expectation for the Covenant and the Optional Protocol.  Case law was developed to provide interpretation of the provisions, which might have an impact on the law of countries in the future. 

There was already accidental evidence of the impact of the Protocol.  One example was the universal trend towards abolition of the death penalty, towards which the Committee had given certain contributions.  In a recent case, the Canadian Supreme Court had discussed cases also brought before the Committee.  He also mentioned cases in Zimbabwe and South Africa.  The Committee’s finding also had influence on other human rights institutions.  There was a mutual exchange of influence with the European Human Rights Court.  The American Convention on Human Rights included a reference to other obligations of the States parties.

He concluded that the Committee’s experience in applying the Optional Protocol also meant a step towards gradual development of a global human rights court.

Discussion Segment

An expert said that 25 years of the Covenant was a cause for celebration.  It was also a time for accounting and for asking how successful the Covenant and the Committee had been.  The Covenant was a mechanism to further respect for human rights in the world -- not an end in itself.  Unfortunately, the situation in many parts of the world was not encouraging.  It was essential to ask what had really been achieved and what the Committee could be doing to make its work more effective.

Another expert said he shared Mr. Henkin’s assessment on the primary role and responsibility of States parties in implementing the Covenant.  States parties should not hide behind monitoring bodies like the Committee -- monitoring bodies played an important role, but implementation was up to the States.  The Covenant itself drew attention to the continuing responsibility of States parties in that regard. 

He thought that the follow-up of concluding observations had long been a neglected point in the proceedings of the Committee.  There was now an attempt to follow up on the observations, which would fill an important lacuna.  He envisaged a time when the Committee would take a further step in amending its procedures, perhaps occasionally splitting into two groups during sessions, to deal with the increased workload.

An expert said it was important to ensure progress not regression.  Some States were far from reaching the twenty-first century.  The Committee should play a role in integrating those distrustful of human rights.  Sometimes it was necessary to speed up history.  States must be gradually impregnated by the mechanism of the Committee.  The Committee should more firmly develop an information and dialogue policy based on education. 

It was unfortunate that an event like today’s had not been given the requisite media coverage, he said.  It was important to have an event commemorating the Committee’s twenty-fifth anniversary next year with adequate media coverage.

An expert from Canada said the Covenant and the Optional Protocol were not very well known in his country, and neither was their anniversary.  It was not well known among the public, but also not among lawyers and courts.  In Canada, only one case of a communication had received wide attention, and it was a negative reaction.  There was a need to think of ways and means of making the existence of the Covenant and the Committee more widely known.  Perhaps non-governmental organizations, more pointed observations or more active follow-up could help.  He suggested the Committee should consider the situation, which was lamentable.

Another expert doubted whether the judicial process was the only method of improving the human rights situation.  The consultative dialogue was an effective means of improving the human rights situation in the world.  Continuation was a power in itself.  Through the Committee’s efforts there had been gradual but steady progress.  The International Law Reports (Cambridge University Press), carrying the most important international decisions, had started to carry the Committee’s jurisprudence, which was a sign of its increasing importance.  He appealed to Committee members not to get disappointed and to continue their work.

CECILIA MEDINA QUIROGA of Chile, Committee Member, spoke on relations between the Committee and non-governmental organizations.  She said the Covenant gave rights to individuals -- that being so, it was clear that individuals should have considerable participation in its implementation.  The Covenant created an international public order, which must be maintained both by individuals and States. 

The Committee’s monitoring role could not be effective unless those affected -– individuals -- were consulted, she said.  The Committee had long been aware of the need to have individuals participate in its work.  Non-governmental organizations generally reflected the rights of individuals and so had begun participating in the work of the Committee.  Discussions had been held over the years on how to maximize the efficiency of their contribution. 

The work of such organizations was particularly advantageous in the struggle to protect human rights, she said.  Their role in the affirmation of the universality of human rights had been one of the largest contributions.  The provision to the Committee of well-documented and serious information on monitoring the rights of women had also been a great help.  Information on the treatment of children and torture had also been provided by non-governmental organizations.  Clearly, the Committee could not function without information from non-governmental organizations.

The concept of holding a meeting with non-governmental organizations with interpretation services enjoyed near consensus, she said.   She noted that there had been a huge increase in the number of cases brought to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which was due to non-governmental organizations that helped individuals and encouraged them to complain.  One of the main roles of non-governmental organizations could be to encourage States to maintain the international public order.  The momentum of international human rights law should not decrease.  She thanked non-governmental organizations for the huge amount of work they had done to help in the struggle for human rights. 

JESSICA NEUWIRTH, representative of “Equality Now”, commended the Committee for its extraordinary work, which served as a model for United Nations-non-governmental organization interaction.  The Committee had brought life to provisions regarding human rights violations against women.  The words of the Committee had gone a long way to strengthen demands non-governmental organizations made on governments to respect human rights.

The general comment on article 3 had covered issues such as rape, female infanticide, polygamy, widow burning, pornography, forced abortion, female genital mutilation and dress regulations, among other things.  That vision of equality was virtually unparalleled in the United Nations system and served as a model for gender mainstreaming.  The Committee was truly on the front lines of the global effort to acknowledge women’s rights as human rights.  The Committee would make international law stronger and more meaningful in the protection of human rights.

WENDY PALLISER, a representative of Amnesty International, said as a key monitoring mechanism, the Committee had played a great role in Amnesty International’s work to promote human rights.  It had provided an authoritative interpretation of the Covenant on which the organization relied.

She said emphasis should be placed on strengthening the concluding observations of treaty-monitoring bodies.  That was as essential as ensuring a strong dialogue throughout the examination process by means of thorough, systematic and in-depth questioning of a State party’s representatives and by prompt follow-up on all unanswered questions.

Now, 25 years after the adoption of the Covenant, the majority of the world’s nations were now obliged to report publicly to an international body of experts responsible for examining what those States were doing to give effect to a full range of fundamental civil and political rights.  Unfortunately, at the national and local level, people were unaware of the Committee’s work.  She regretted that the sessions were poorly attended by the media and the public.  Amnesty International renewed its recommendations that examinations of State party

reports be broadcast live on television and radio and via the Web site of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

An expert noted that the Committee had benefited from the beginning from the help of non-governmental organizations, although very little had been said about the assistance of non-governmental organizations under the Optional Protocol.  He wished to emphasize their role in that regard.

The question of human rights was addressed under the United Nations Charter, and the Organization had elaborated a number of mechanisms -- not just the Human Rights Committee, he said.  The Committee was not alone in dealing with Human Rights.  Its work was of great importance.  States had a duty to themselves and to the other States parties of the Covenant.

An expert said human rights were not international -- they were national and must be protected within the legal system of States.  International standards were there for guidance, but the work done by non-governmental organizations had to be done within national systems, he pointed out.

DANIEL PINTO, from Trinidad and Tobago, said that when he was convicted for murder and sentenced to death in Trinidad and Tobago, he had not thought he would be addressing the Committee today in New York after serving 19 arduous and soul-wrenching years in prison.  He thanked the Committee for the pivotal part it had played in his release and Amnesty International for its sponsorship of his participation.

He said he had been charged with murder on 18 February 1982, and since then had been committed to prison until a presidential pardon on 24 October 2000.  He had spent eight years on death row.  As a result of the intervention of the Committee, his sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment and later he had been released after his case had been raised in Parliament.

Regrettably, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago had since withdrawn from the Human Rights Committee and also from the Inter–American Commission on Human Rights, ostensibly to carry out the death penalty without the encumbrance of delay that those international bodies might cause.  His case had highlighted the importance of the Human Rights Committee to fellow prisoners.

He believed the International Covenant needed teeth to enforce its decisions.  Policies and guidelines must be formulated in order to ensure that governments complied with their human rights obligations to their citizens and to their fellow member countries of the United Nations.

The Chairman then made a brief concluding statement, summarizing what had been said during the meeting.  He also thanked the two former Chairmen for their contributions.

* *** *